Migration

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Behind oil export and above tourism, remittances from Mexicans abroad to their home country makes up a large part of the cash that builds homes and futures in many Mexican communities. With the recent economic crisis in the US, America’s neighbours are starting to feel the fallout of the Mortgage Crisis that is slowly presenting problems in countries outside of the G8. With many Mexicans living in the US in hard hit areas, those funds that used to pay for medicine, food, homes and everything else for families of migrants from Mexico are now suddenly being cut off with great effect.

With a decline in remittances of 7% since last year, many in Mexico who were just keeping afloat may slip into poverty this year. Many small villages who sent their young men and women over the border and who often are mired in economic troubles are the hardest hit communities in Mexico when economic troubles loom. With remittances to Mexico increasing five and a half times since 1997 to $24 billion, these funds are not only a necessity, but is Mexico’s second largest source of foreign revenue. What also seems to focus the tension on Mexico is that areas in the US where Mexicans have migrated to are also those worst hit by the crisis. While migrants from El Salvador and Guatemala are also affected, those communities often have settled in the Washington-Maryland areas which have been less affected by the crisis according to The Washington Post.

The likely effect of the crisis outside the US may result in more illegal migration across the border. Despite the troubles in the US, communities in Mexico near poverty will not weather the lack of funds as easily as much of the United States. Economies tied in with the US will slowly feel the effects of economic troubles in their largest export market. The lack of sympathy for future trade agreements and harder policies on immigration will also likely take hold with the poor economy and continued anti-NAFTA and FTA sentiments in the US Congress. The next American President will have a lot of repair work when beginning his or her job in 2009.

*This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

I was happy to read a clever article called: Linking NAFTA and Immigration by Ted Lewis of the San Diego Tribune as he discusses the campaign issues and how they are being spun to effect the campaign and America’s neighbours in a negative fashion. Lewis suggests that reform in NAFTA and effects on the poorest in the three member states needs to be addressed in a logical fashion, and not via the lens of the complete benefit of free trade or lowbrow electioneering. Addressing poverty and its root causes of increased unemployment in Mexico needs to be addressed in any future NAFTA negotiation. Lewis states that much of the illegal immigration comes from a lack of economic progress in Mexico since the agreement began and has lead to massive amounts of immigration to the US. Lewis also mentions that the electioneering between Obama and Clinton creates arguments against free trade, and in my impression creates intentional dissent in the US against Canada and Mexico. While Obama was blamed for not being serious in changing NAFTA, Clinton has used this small scandal to re-ignite her campaign. Ironically, the alienation of friendly foreign governments was always something linked with Bush, but support for the next Clinton Presidency may rest on the backs of Canadians and Mexicans alike if it continues to hurt Obama.

With much of the support for the Clinton campaign coming from the blue collar democrats in the northern states and America’s traditional industrial heartland, it makes sense that Clinton would use Canada and Mexico to blame for poor US policy in the past, much of which came under her husband’s term in office. In reality, the Mexican economy has purged its traditional weaknesses since 1994 and has maintained a solidly valued Peso, growth in the long run and even produced a more equitable government with the PRI dominated Presidency toppling a few years after NAFTA came into effect. The reality is that Mexico is a developing nation in many ways and has problems which 10 years of trade policy could never resolve in its best performance. To end poverty and develop a country, a generation is needed to end generations of poverty and inequality. Targeted anti-poverty policy is needed to help remove the 30% of Mexicans who live in poverty and have always lived in poverty. Economic progress in Mexico has created such negative results because the flow of money often reaches the poorest last. This is the trend in almost every country where poverty dominates the political agenda. No one has addressed this in the Obama camp, and with the Clinton campaign it seems that immigration and NAFTA come second to embarrassing Obama as much as possible.

While poverty and success in Mexico’s economy can always be debated, the main issue of concern is that anti-immigrant and anti-NAFTA effects of running a negative campaign. It seems apparent that even though NAFTA is a mixed blessing, the current concerns with China seems to be targeted towards America’s neighbours. While China has a right to progress economically and diversify its society as it wishes, Americans need to debate how they want to proceed with their neighbours and China in a logical, fair and respectful manner and choose where they wish to take America in the future. No country can live in a vacuum, but every country has the ability to take measured and fair responses to grow its own economy and produce trade and development to assist its own people, create a net benefit in jobs and reduce poverty.

In a response to one of the FPA’s blogs, a candidate for Congress in the US claimed the wholly negative effects of NAFTA and America as losing its sovereignty over NAFTA. I responded in kind in order to dispel myths which seek to create straw man arguments of America’s friends and neighbours. I encourage readers to read the responses to the blog and address their concerns in kind. All fair points of view are respected and I encourage open debate. The response is noted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog: Paranoia on the Frontier: NAFTA and the US Election

 *This post has also been cross-posted in the FPA’s Latin America Blog.

Mexico has always had a mixed relationship with its citizens abroad. Problems dealing with poverty in Mexico have not tarnished pride in their roots. Class divisions never quelled a strong sense of nationhood with its citizens on every social strata. While many Mexican’s left the country since the 1970’s, it was often for economic opportunity which was hard to come by for many in the north of Mexico and in the southern estados, and was a way to escape living in the violent areas of Mexico City where opportunity disappeared in crisis after crisis following oil shocks and multiple collapses of the economy in the late 70s to late 90s.

What those on both sides of the border have seldom addressed in those years is the connection that those who have left Mexico have to their heritage in Mexico, and towards their new lives in the United States. Many in Mexico see those who left as abandoning the country, but with poverty rates of over 30% there was never any question that leaving Mexico was a logical decision by those who made the journey. The change in perception is stark, with new generations being born and growing up in the US often as Mexican-Americans, growing up speaking only English while listening to music in Spanish and being a mix of many diverse cultures. This relatively new culture would have never existed in Mexico, but is not seen as uniquely American by those who belong in it or those outside it. Many in this new culture love being “Mexican”, but are not treated as such in Mexico and often have a tough time becoming typically American in their own places of birth. Recently politicians in both countries have taken interest in this new community as well.

After years of not being noticed politically, since the 1990’s the Latino vote has become key in the next Presidential Elections in the US. The recent Clinton Campaign has relied on much of the Latino vote in the latest Primaries, with Hispanics in America, mostly of Mexican descent, making up a large portion of Hillary’s support in many American states. Mexico has noticed it may have influence as well, if it can re-adopt many of those forgotten Mexicans living abroad. Since the Presidency of Vicente Fox there has been efforts made by his Administration and his PAN party to generate positive relations with the United States on many fronts. Before the War on Terror, the Bush administration was seen as a key player on reforming immigration and helping re-connect Mexicans in the US and Mexico to produce closer ties. While these policies were abandoned for the most part, the interest of President Calderon of Mexico to re-initiate closer ties with the US remains. With the new President likely to be one who is open on immigration, Clinton, Obama and McCain will likely have a positive partner in Felipe Calderon of Mexico.

Calderon will not only have a positive partner in any President who is elected, but is reaching out to discuss policy initiatives and re-engage Mexicans of all backgrounds with Mexico itself. While he has an opportunity to put Mexico back on the agenda in the US, he must be careful not to be seen as dictating policy to the new American President who often lose support on their policies on immigration to the US, and must give a new respect to those Mexican-Americans who feel abandoned by Mexico and will make up a large portion of America’s educated and middle class youth in the future. While Calderon can rally all Hispanics on human rights for newcomers to the US, it will be an uphill struggle to gain complete acceptance from Americans and Mexicans in America alike.

Some of the Republican party’s most celebrated candidates have come from lives which mirror the stereotype of a true American hero. Presidents like George Bush the First gained early notoriety as an Aircraft Carrier bomber pilot in the Second World War, being shot down in an attack on the Japanese navy. Reagan, a model for many Republican candidates at least acted as a hero on the silver screen and gained notoriety as the man who threatened the Soviets by words and by assaulting countries such as Grenada and Libya with air strikes and small invasion forces. He also gave birth to a trend which created such films as Red Dawn and Iron Eagle, the latter referring to Reagan as “Ray-Gun”, promoting his no nonsense style of dealing with threats from foreign nations and possibly extra-terrestrial attacks.

In 2008, the candidate to beat is one that was not only on a Carrier when it exploded accidentally, but was also shot down in his A-4 Skyhawk over Vietnam, and in a Ramboesque fashion imprisoned in Vietnam for a good part of his 20’s. In the upcoming Michigan Primary, John McCain is the man to beat for the next Republican nomination, but this stereotypical true American hero has one issue which is taking its share from his campaign, he is able to be tortured and beaten for almost a decade in a Vietnamese prison, but he is seen as being “soft” on immigration. With Giulani far down in the polls and Mitt Romney looking at getting his 2nd place campaign replaced, Huckabee and McCain seek to polarize Republican support between the religious right for former Pastor Huckabee, and everyone else for McCain. Republican voters however in Michigan may be an advantage in this primary, as with only Republicans in Michigan in this vote many who would be independent may vote for this Republican primary. With more centrist interested not being taken by a Democratic campaign in Michigan, immigration may not hinder McCain, but give him a small advantage.

Some Republicans like Arnie in California have taken non-traditional approaches to immigration in the Republican Party. With the fight brewing over the African-American vote amongst the Democrats, McCain may be a winner in this race because he is willing to realize that even if many foreign nationals are not legally residing in the US, many others are legal American citizens and Latinos are becoming the largest minority and more economically diverse. Like in California, the next President must address an America that is not only Black or White, but a lot of shades of American heros.

How does one become President in a country with more than 20 million illegal immigrants? Well, the issue is not so simple as it isn’t something that people tend to be bothered by too much. In a VOA article on the Democratic Candidates and Swing States in the US they note that only 20-25% of people would not vote for a candidate if they disagreed with them on immigration. Voters, according to the article “..by and large don’t dislike illegal immigrants..” which Senator Clinton, Giulani and Obama have taken to a new level, pushing immigrant issue into the spotlight to earn the votes of the American Hispanic community, while not offending many other Americans in the process.

This soft strategy has not been absorbed into the Republican ranks so far. Rep. Tancredo did not attend a televised Spanish Language debate to make a “mute” point, while Senator John McCain has become the immigration darling of the Republican party supporting much of the immigration reforms discussed in the policy debates this past summer. These two pariahs in the Republican Party on immigration may hinder the Republicans as a whole by alienating the Hispanic vote, with little support for immigration reform from most of the candidates, not helped by Tancredo’s silly boycott. Alternatively, McCain may give some Hispanics a reason to have faith in his party, but may alienate more hardline Republicans on the immigration issue. He is often mistaken as a Democratic-Republican, with the exception for his support on Iraq he could be an ideal running mate with a Clinton if the proposal was a realistic one.

In the middle of the debate is Romney and Huckabee, using the immigration issue to take each other to task as the polls heat up in Iowa. Immigration issues in Iowa may become a microcosm for the GOP and the Presidential election in the near future as the interest in Iraq is becoming slowly displaced with the immigration debate. Despite problems in Iraq, no candidate wants to dwell on the issue in order to distance themselves from Bush and dive into another unsolvable debate. Immigration is something candidates can use as ammunition it seems without having anything blow up in their face…a luxury which the soldiers in Iraq do not currently possess.

*This article has been posted both on FPA’s Migration Blog as well as the Mexico Blog this week.

Illegal immigration may be one of the hot button issues for the next Presidential election, and will favour neither party in the process. In the Democratic party debates televised widely among American networks this past weekend two things were made clear. Firstly, that immigration will likely be a key issue in the next election, and Secondly that no one has a clear idea on how to handle the situation as there is no clear solution to the problem. This has lead to many candidates being seen as slightly differing on the issue in insignificant amounts with the exception of Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo who’s recent campaign commercials make reference “that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border”. This has made me wonder in a personal context, do Mexican’s and Islamic terrorists look similar to each other? I’ll leave it as an open question for the reader to decide. In the end the answer is as clear as the debate on the issue as neither has anything to do with securing the border in any realistic way or giving necessary rights to individuals regardless of their legal status. Of course, It will not make a difference for Rep.Tancredo as he is quite far from winning the Republican nomination and has nothing to lose making a decisive choice on an issue no one can resolve.

What did result from the debates this past weekend is that Senator Clinton is starting to assert herself against rival Edwards and Obama after losing some support in the last few weeks in her campaign. Migration issues can place candidates in a position of losing much of the Hispanic vote, or alternatively losing the vote of many Americans who desire an answer to the Immigration question. This was made evident on challenges made by the candidates of each other on specifics of the issue, knowing full well that a slight change in answer or attitude may set their campaign into a downward spiral. With Bush’s attempt to deal with illegal migration last summer to turn his legacy away from the focus on problems in Iraq, an explosive question was laid for the next election that could affect the outcome of the election at the end of the day. With such evenly matched candidates in Obama, Clinton, Romney and Edwards poised to challenge other strong candidates in Giulani, America’s 9/11 hero and John McCain Vietnam war hero and torture victim the outcome is that one of these American heros will win, but small opinions such as on Immigration may absorb thousands of votes in the process even if the issue will not be resolved itself. The only assurance in the debate on migration and the upcoming election is that people are going to be fatigued with the election well before it begins as much as they are already fatigued discussing the Immigration issue which no one can solve for the next while. It seems that next year’s big blockbuster issues are ones that we have seen for months already and will be dealing with for the next months to come.

In this week’s roundup - a look at Finland, as it tries to become a destination country for immigrants. Two personal stories that are causing politicians to critically reexamine Austria’s immigration legislation and a new report from UCSD that argues in favor of continued Mexican migration to the US to stem the adverse effects of a decline in the working population.

Looks like Frontex isn’t the magic solution after all. German papers are reporting that hundreds of migrants were rescued from the waters off the Italian island of Lampedusa over the past few days. Almost 600 mostly African migrants had been taken aboard coast guard and rescue vessels within 24 hours between Wednesday and Thursday evening of last week - more than 300 on Wednesday alone. A previous dip in the numbers of migrants seeking access to European territories from the Atlantik and Canary Islands had been attributed to closer surveillance of by EU border patrols, but numbers have been rising again over the past few weeks, particularly in the Eastern Mediterranean sea.

• A new report from the University of California San Diego argues that instead of closing borders to Mexican immigrants, the US needs to bring in more migrants to stem a looming demographic downturn that will pull at the purse strings of retirement funds, once the baby boomers leave their jobs in droves in the coming years. And immigration might not be the only solution, as fertility numbers among Mexican immigrants are also dropping.
• US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are coming under fire following a wave of raids against illegal immigrants in suburban New York, the New York Times reports.
• The electoral campaign of one of Switzerland’s largest parties has come under scrutiny for its racist undertones. A poster illustrating the party’s hardline stance in immigration shows a group of white sheep standing on a Swiss flag symbolically kicking a black sheep out of the country. The campaign has polarized a country, which prides itself on consensus policy-making. Over the weekend, sparks flew as left-wing protestors took to the street to demonstrate against the SVP campaign in the country’s capital, Bern.
• Two recent cases of immigrant family deportations have raised new questions about the controversial 2006 Austrian immigration law, which changed the provisions for residency.
• Finland is looking to become a destination country for highly-skilled migrants, the FT report, but has yet to develop a compelling strategy to attract the best and brightest it is looking for. It is hoped that these migrants will continue to power the R&D heavy side of the country’s high-tech companies. But just as needed are the semi-skilled, the nurses and caretakers of the elderly, just as much as the plumbers and metal workers. The government is looking to recruit workers primarly from neighboring countries, including Russia, but has had to acknowledge that the extreme degree of red tape involved in applying for residency and the country’s high taxes do not make for attractive prospects for would-be migrants. An attitude shift toward migrants may also be needed, as prejudices toward particularly Soviet migrants are still rife among Finnish employers, the article suggests.

After the painful debate in the US about immigration this past year, none of the future Presidential candidates came out as a hero for the Hispanic voter in the intense conflict between individual Democrats and Republicans as well as within the parties themselves on how to change the US Immigration fiasco for the better. While not a hot issue beforehand, the Bush Presidency opened the issue to allow a debate beyond Iraq and allow Mr. Bush to end his second term with some positive changes to internal policies in the United States near the beginning of 2007.

While seen by many as self-serving, Bush did try to create positive change to US Immigration policy recently, which was in 2001 his main focus before 9/11. In the end, the support for giving more access and legalizing illegal workers in the United States started where it ended, absolutely nowhere. The only beneficiaries were American media outlets who were given something else to report on besides climate change and the occasional car chase in Springfield, Anywhere, USA. Since the end of the Bill this past summer, the only mention of immigration was on Lou Dobbs and the occasional report on the lack of progress of the fence to be built between the US, Mexico and even Canada.

With the increased furor of the US Presidential elections, a large pile of candidates has announced their intention to run. With such a large number of candidates comes large debate that is hard to follow in any neighborhood or community in the US. One debate this past week was done on a Spanish language channel in the US where the Democratic candidates gave their opinion on issues ranging from immigration to immigration as Jon Stewart cleverly pointed out. The interviewer also questioned issues concerning Cuba and how to address Chavez of Venezuela and his negative PR campaign of the US. While most of the responses were directed by each candidate slightly to the left or slightly to the right of their colleagues, the main focus was on how Republicans often-created negative impressions of immigration to quell any proper debate on the issue, while Democrats were seeking a concrete solution to the immigration issue. This image might have been quashed however, when Sen. Bill Richardson, who is of Hispanic descent, was prohibited from speaking in Spanish as not to give unfair advantage to him in the translated debates. In the end I believe that with the vast number of candidates and everyone waiting for the end of Bush, many do not give much attention to any debates at this point so far away from the voting date. The only assurance is that there will be a new President, but no one could predict who it could be at this point…so place your bets!

Immigration was the hot-button topic across Europe for much of this week (see our separate article on the Blue Card proposal). Following EU Commissioner Franco Frattini’s announcement to introduce a Europe-wide measure to facilitate the immigration of highly-skilled workers to combat existing labor shortages, Member State governments fell all over themselves to criticize the measure, if only to appease a presumed electoral backlash. But there was more news across Europe and the world:

• Earlier in the week, the French parliament debated the President’s new immigration legislation, which includes a proposal to demand DNA samples from visa applicants looking to move to France to prove genetic family ties to those already living in the country. The amendment would require consular offices in the native countries to administer such tests. Human rights organizations were quick to point to the costs of these tests, which the proposal suggests should be voluntary. Tests would serve to weed out economically and perhaps genetically less desireable migrants, they say.
• Brice Hortefeux, France’s immigration minister is also stepping up the pressure elsewhere. In trying to make good on the promises in the Sarkozy electoral campaign (see my commentary on the French election and immigration), he met with local administrators during the week to address why they were failing to meet the ambitious deportation goals set by the President. Sarkozy wants to see 25,000 illegal immigrants deported from France this year. Needless to say, human rights and migrant organizations are heavily critical of the emphasis on achieving the ‘right’ numbers.
• Ahead of EU Commission’s ground-breaking announcement on legal migration, the members of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee sat down to formulate their recommendations toward addressing the situation of illegal immigrants.  One key issue was that jail time for illegals be limited to a more humane period of time. Parliamentarians suggested that illegal immigrants be held no longer than 18-months ahead of deportation across all EU Member States.  The lawmakers decided illegal immigrants can be held in custody for three months from the moment they are apprehended by police, after which an extension of up to 15 months needs to be justified — for example, when background checks on the immigrant take longer or if the person has no valid papers and documents must be obtained from third countries. In addition, parliamentarians want to see a greater degree of protection for illegal immigrants with residence permits that have fallen seriously ill and want to curtail the deportation of unaccompanied migrant children.
• Randal Archibold of the New York Times is reporting that while overall numbers of migrants crossing the border to the US from Mexico in Arizona is down - in part due to reinforced policing measures - the number of migrants dying in transit toward the promise of a new life is heading toward a new record.  Migrants are unaccustomed and unprepared to weather the climate changes in the Arizona desert and as they are forced to charter new ground to evade border patrols, there is little word-of-mouth on how to prepare for harsh conditions.
• Nine months after the fact, Union representatives at the Swift & Company meatpacking plants (we featured the story here) are suing federal immigration agents over the way workers were treated during a raid, which led to the deportation of over 600 workers.
• The Associated Press is reporting that Saul Arellano, son of prominent immigration activist Elvira Arellano (we covered the story here) has rejoined his mother in Mexico. Earlier in the week, 150 people staged a protest in Congress against his deportation to Mexico, given his US citizenship status.
• This week’s big migration-related story is obviously the EU Blue Card proposal to bring in thousands of skilled-migrant workers to combat looming labor shortages. Other countries, such as Malaysia, are also learning that simply expelling migrants for the sake of popular politics, has a profound impact on the economy. The IHT is reporting that the country’s campaign to expel 600,000 illegal migrant workers is starting to backfire, as demand for workers is growing with increasing government investsments ($57 billion) in agriculture, construction and manufacturing to sustain economic growth through 2010. Some plantation owners and construction companies are already reporting labor shortages and things are expected to get worse.
• Speaking of Asian governments, Japan Focus has published an overview of how municipalities in the country are dealing with migrant needs and how that, in turn, influences their two-pronged integration policy, which closely and purposely mirrors the European approach (*side note: who would have thought that the patche Europea immigration and integration policy is a model worth exporting!). The full report can be read here. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the results of the survey show that there is a great variance of how social integration questions are addressed, with some communities choosing not to differentiate between local and migrant population in terms of services offered, and others focused particularly on the needs of migrant women.

This week’s news roundup features a closer look at Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s agenda on immigration, as well as a number of personal stories on asylum and Mexican-American relations:

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has decided it is time to talk tough on immigration to outflank the Tories, as they try to garner that political topic for themselves. Over recent weeks, David Cameron, the Conservative leader has made a number of relatively vague statements on how immigration is a burden to local councils and a problem that needs to be acted upon. Now Mr. Brown wants to be seen to be doing just that: The Prime Minister has announced new immigration rules for thousands of foreigners seeking work in the country. The scheme would extend the language testing requirement already in operation for highly-skilled (i.e. university qualified, doctors, lawyers, etc.) migrants to the second tier, the skilled migrant category. Skilled workers from outside the EU will have to prove their English language skills or risk being sent home. According to analysts, this new measure could shut out around 35,000 skilled workers a year - and this, in turn, is worrying to British employers. Reuters quotes David Frost, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce: “In recent years migrant workers to the UK have ensured the continued growth of the economy, possessing a work ethic and skill level that many young British people just do not have. Of course language skills are important but I would be concerned if this meant that those who want to work and help our economy grow are kept out of the country and take their skills and talent elsewhere.” The Times paints the policy initiative in a far more nationalist perspective, as this announcement arrives in tandem with an incentive package for UK employers to hire British workers, with an emphasis on youth and long-term unemployed.

• In conservative politics elsewhere, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani has come out to say that illegal immigration is not a crime, kicking off a further dust-ruffling discussion with rival Mitt Romney, who accused Mr. Guiliani of not taking the issue seriously enough. In making his case, the former New York mayor is defending the City’s so-called sanctuary policy, which stopped city workers from reporting suspected illegal immigrants. The policy is intended to make illegal immigrants feel that they can report crimes, send their children to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported. It did require police to turn in illegal immigrants suspected of committing crimes. While NYC’s approach is an enlightened one and one that demonstrates true public policy making, Mr. Guiliani’s overall solution to the immigration problem is not: “My solution is: Close the border to illegal immigration.” Now that’s an innovative and helpful public policy proposal.
• We recently reported on how heads of local Iraqi provinces were denying settlement to internally displaced refugees. The latest report by the International Organization for Migration shows just how dire the situation has become: “In Basrah as in other governorates, the report finds that displaced women cannot access limited health facilities because of chronic insecurity and in Kirkuk, traditional customs continue to restrict the movement of displaced women. In Anbar, although governorate authorities have not officially imposed restrictions, the intensity of intertribal conflict requires IDPs to have tribal ties to an area in order to stay there safely.”
• Another prominent case of an illegal immigrant mother has been resolved. The story of Zhenxing Jiang made international headlines in 2002, when news broke that she had miscarried twins after allegedly being mistreated by US immigration official trying to deport her. The case has been under review for a number of years, but now Ms. Jiang has been granted political asylum and is thus allowed to remain in the US with her husband and American passport-carrying children. In her original asylum claim, Ms. Jiang had noted that under the Chinese one-child policy, she could have faced forced abortion or even sterilization, had she returned to the country with two American children.
• The San Francisco Chronicle features a profile of Lionel Sosa, the Mexican-American entrepreneur and political advisor on Latino Affairs who has now thrown his weight into finding practical ways of bridging the divide between Mexico and the United States with his new think tank MATT.org - Mexican & Americans Thinking Together.
• When three Muslim-fundamentalist terrorists were arrested in Germany earlier in the week, following the discovery of a plot to blow up a number of establishments frequented by Americans in September, Germans were shocked at the news that two of the suspects were countrymen who had converted to Islam and become radicalized through the mosque they visited in Ulm, but mostly through the terrorist training camps they attended in Pakistan. Hardly any public attention was lavished on the third suspect - a Muslim of Turkish origin. While all of Germany pondered the possible threat of the “new converts,” the New York Times examines what impact the involvement of a second-generation Turk in this plot might have on the image of the Turkish community in Germany.